Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Kamal Kishore Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh 16 Wps/3458/2019 ... on 8 May, 2019

Smt. Kamla vs Sh. Kamal Kishore Arora on 14 February, 2022

1) Appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been invoked under section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 15.11.2014, passed by Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ld. ACJ­ CUM­ARC (North­East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in an eviction petition bearing No. E­50/13 titled as "Kamal Kishore Arora vs. Kamla" vide which eviction order was passed against the appellant.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manna Devi vs . Kamal Jeet on 31 March, 2022

14. Considering the fact that the plaintiff has proved the documents executed by the defendant as Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) and further, considering the fact that the defendant himself, in his suit titled as Kamal Jeet vs. Manna Devi, the certified copy of the plaint wherein has been proved by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/4, has referred to the execution of certain documents, though claiming the total sale consideration of the property was Rs.9,00,000/­. The same indicates that the documents were admittedly executed by the defendant. Coupled with the fact that there is nothing to rebut the inference generated by the documents Ex.PW1/1 (colly.), it stands proved that the defendant had executed the documents Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) in favour of the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamal Kumar vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 15 April, 2026

"The undersigned has carefully considered the appellant's RTI application and the reply given thereon by the PIO/SP (D)SA. After examination of the RTI file and available records, as well as the decision of CIC/UTOAN/A2023/147313 dated 06/08/2024 passed by Central Information Commission in the matter of Kamal Kumar vs PIO/SP(D)SA the undersigned is of the view that the RTI application filed by the appellant is voluminous, cumbersome in nature and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 words, as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. Hence, the decision of the Public Information Officer/SP(D)SA is therefore, upheld Page 3 of 6 CIC/UTOAN/A/2025/100228 The appeal is accordingly disposed of."
Central Information Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C24/8/2021 on 2 September, 2021

The present transfer application, has been preferred by invoking the provisions contained under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was preferred by the defendant/wife, praying for transfer of the matrimonial proceedings of Case No. 68 of 2020, Kamal Kishore Joshi Vs. Smt. Anjali, preferred under Section 13(1)(i) and Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was preferred by the respondent/husband, before the Family Court, Almora, and it was sought to be transferred to the competent Court of equivalent jurisdiction at district Udham Singh Nagar.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Mohd. Wali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 May, 2026

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was summoned by the learned Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 228 of 2024 (Kamal Yadav vs. Mohammad Wali), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After securing bail, an application under Section 143-A(1) of the N.I. Act was filed by the respondent/complainant, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court without proper exercise of judicial discretion, thereby directing the petitioner to pay fifty percent of the cheque amount as interim compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was time-barred, and the learned Trial Court failed to consider that no relief can be granted in a time-barred proceeding.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next